From SFGate: Airports almost empty day before Thanksgiving.
Bay Area airports were eerily empty for much of what traditionally has been among the busiest travel days of the year.
Traditions appeared to die a swifter death this year than many a turkey. Travel costs money, something a lot of people don't have right now.
"There's nobody here," said Deborah Vainieri, who was waiting at San Francisco International Airport with her husband, Humberto, for a flight to Portland.
In a plot to beat the crowds, the Vainieris had arrived at the airport four hours early. They walked right up to the check-in machine and were done in less than a minute. Then, at 1:02 p.m., they walked to the main Terminal 3 security line and found themselves all alone.
There was nobody in line ahead of them, not a single person.
"Now what do we do?" said Humberto. "We have four hours to kill."
Welcome to deflation, folks!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Hooking for Hannukah
From Yahoo!: Meltdown fallout: some parents rethink toy-buying.
In a season that inspires earnest letters about toys, one notable batch is being sent not by kids to Santa's workshop but by parents to the executive suites of real-world toy makers.
The message: Please, in these days of economic angst, cut back on marketing your products directly to our children.
The letter-writing initiative was launched by the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which says roughly 1,400 of its members and supporters have contacted 24 leading toy companies and retailers to express concern about ads aimed at kids.
LOL. Yeah, this is reaaaaaaaaaaaally going to work.
"Parents have trouble saying no," said Allison Pugh, a University of Virginia sociology professor. She says parents often buy toys to avoid guilt and ensure their children feel in sync with school classmates.
"Even under circumstances of dire financial straits, that's the last thing parents give up," said Pugh. "They'll contain their own buying for themselves before they'll make their child feel different at school."
Amanda Almodovar says she encounters such families in her work as an elementary school social worker in Alamance County, N.C., where homelessness and unemployment are rising.
"I try to tell them, worry about your home, your heating bill -- but they're the ones who have to look into children's faces, the children saying 'I want this, I want that.'"
"I had one parent who said she'd prostitute herself to get what her child wants," Almodovar said. "It's heartbreaking. They feel inadequate as parents.
Well, don't just stand there! Get down on your knees for a warm meal.
In a season that inspires earnest letters about toys, one notable batch is being sent not by kids to Santa's workshop but by parents to the executive suites of real-world toy makers.
The message: Please, in these days of economic angst, cut back on marketing your products directly to our children.
The letter-writing initiative was launched by the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which says roughly 1,400 of its members and supporters have contacted 24 leading toy companies and retailers to express concern about ads aimed at kids.
LOL. Yeah, this is reaaaaaaaaaaaally going to work.
"Parents have trouble saying no," said Allison Pugh, a University of Virginia sociology professor. She says parents often buy toys to avoid guilt and ensure their children feel in sync with school classmates.
"Even under circumstances of dire financial straits, that's the last thing parents give up," said Pugh. "They'll contain their own buying for themselves before they'll make their child feel different at school."
Amanda Almodovar says she encounters such families in her work as an elementary school social worker in Alamance County, N.C., where homelessness and unemployment are rising.
"I try to tell them, worry about your home, your heating bill -- but they're the ones who have to look into children's faces, the children saying 'I want this, I want that.'"
"I had one parent who said she'd prostitute herself to get what her child wants," Almodovar said. "It's heartbreaking. They feel inadequate as parents.
Well, don't just stand there! Get down on your knees for a warm meal.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Those Magnificent Men in their Missionary Machines
From the San Diego Union Tribune: Over-indebted to credit.
Matt Sauer, a young, single mortgage broker, planned to get rich quick after graduating from college. By age 28, he owned properties in Pacific Beach, Las Vegas and Florida.
Today, the houses are underwater – meaning mortgage debt exceeds market value – and Sauer's dreams of quitting his job to become a Christian missionary are on hold because of his financial obligations.
“Like the Bible says: 'The borrower is the servant to the lender,' ” Sauer said. “I am enslaved.”
Looks like the missionary position is over. It's time for doggie-style!
Matt Sauer, a young, single mortgage broker, planned to get rich quick after graduating from college. By age 28, he owned properties in Pacific Beach, Las Vegas and Florida.
Today, the houses are underwater – meaning mortgage debt exceeds market value – and Sauer's dreams of quitting his job to become a Christian missionary are on hold because of his financial obligations.
“Like the Bible says: 'The borrower is the servant to the lender,' ” Sauer said. “I am enslaved.”
Looks like the missionary position is over. It's time for doggie-style!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Cracks are Showin'
These articles are illegal in California. It's called Prop. 13 or some such.
From SFGate: Why buy a house? Behold, one of the biggest myths of the American Dream.
Amid the assault of economic horror stories of late -- entire towns collapsing, 750-home megadevelopments sitting vacant, the most severe downturn in new-home construction in four billion years, Marc Jacobs forced to cancel both the gold-dipped male strippers and his entire Christmas party -- I happened across a fascinating tidbit of blasphemous wisdom from an economist whose name I forget and whose article vanished into my brainpan almost instantly, but who dared to reiterate a grand and forbidden truth.
It's this: Owning your own home is, for the most part, just a little bit insane.
Wait, no, that's not exactly right. His comment was more along the lines of: The hard fact is, at any given time, no more than about 50 percent of the American population should own their own homes, at the very most. Everyone else should rent. Or live in a van.
It just makes more sense. He argued that any more than 50 percent ownership -- the current rate is about 85 percent for married couples with kids and 70 percent for everyone overall -- is fiscally irrational, actually does more harm than good to the economy, and that millions of Americans who own right now would've been far better off never buying at all (and not merely because all the foreclosures and lending debacles).
Could it be true? That maybe a large part of our current housing woes are at least somewhat attributable to this borderline pathological need so many of us have to go into massive debt for the majority of our adult lives, just so you can have your own little box to destroy or rearrange or paint any color you want, so long as it's beige or gray or creamy eggshell white? Could be, could be.
Just before lightning struck him dead on the spot for daring to question one of the Great American Commandments, the economist concluded that that maybe this housing meltdown will, among other upheavals, teach millions of Americans a radical new truth: that buying a house is no more a prerequisite to achieving the American Dream than is, say, opening your own steakhouse or marrying a porn star or hoarding piles of stock in GM.
Actually, as a lifetime city dweller/renter myself, I've heard it for years; renting is often better than buying. That when you sit down and crunch the numbers and factor in all the taxes and dues and interest rates, maintenance fees and termites and cracked foundations and busted appliances and the cost of that new sewage line, well, owning is far more of a hassle and a burden and a lifetime o' stress than most people ever imagine.
And why don't we imagine it? Why is owning a home still considered such a prize, such a cornerstone of what it means to be a victorious American? Simple: because that's what we're taught.
It's tattooed into our psyches from birth that a successful society absolutely depends on community, nesting, home ownership to survive and flourish. It's one of the three Grand Directives of Socioeconomic Health, right after getting married and having kids (or, if you're feeling cynical, you add: Get divorce, sell house, resent kids, die alone in Florida. Gosh, you're bitter).
Follow these directives well, good citizen, and get your reward, straight from the government and the approving church down the street. Tax incentives, write-offs, free credit, equity buildup, blessings from God himself. Choose to rent for your whole life and move around a bit and never breed? You get nothing, sinner.
It's true. To defy any of these rules of "healthy" society is not only punishable by banishment from the Garden of Normalcy, but it's widely considered just a bit ... immoral. Live together without marriage? A sin. Birth control? Still a sin (such a cute one, too). Renting instead of buying? OK, not technically a sin, but to never feel a need to buy a home because you enjoy being fluid and experimental and transitory? Sure. Something is clearly wrong with you. Better go live on a commune in Marin, hippie.
I can't count how many friends I've known over the years who say they absolutely love living in the city, but as soon as they get married and/or have a child, something clicks and their eyes get that look, and suddenly they decide they must move to suburban Ohio because, you know, "that's where we can afford to buy a house." See? Pathological.
(Of course, there are many other very important factors at play: space for the kids, tolerable schools, lower taxes, safer neighborhoods, fewer bullet casings and used condoms in the sidewalk, and so on. I get it. But this only explains the need to get out of the City. It still doesn't explain the urge to buy.)
Here's the new wisdom: Social demographics are changing. Family dynamics are shifting. The new data reveals that we are an increasingly fluid, itinerant culture, no longer nearly as rooted to specific towns and neighborhoods as we were 50 years ago. The swell, rose-colored Norman Rockwell image of Americana, all porch swings and free parking and kids riding Big Wheels on the sidewalk next to neighbors who've lived on the street since the Eisenhower administration? Fading fast, if it ever really existed at all.
It's not easy to unpack. It's not easy to see the new perspective. For one thing, homes can be tremendously cool. I imagine designing your own to be the most gratifying form of self-expression, while providing a vital connection to place.
What's more, renting goes directly against our capitalist ethos. People like to own stuff, Americans especially so. Especially Americans who still have a sense of entitlement like no other species on the planet today except maybe Saudi sheiks and celebrity Chihuahuas and Mary J. Blige.
I've often felt the pull myself, have noticed that significant part of me that admires beautiful architecture and design, and often wants very much to invest in a beautiful space of my own and have the freedom to do with it what I want, some sort of gorgeous Dwell magazine fantasia that requires about three million and a revolving account at Roche Bobois. Someday, someday.
But it's certainly worth reconsidering. It's worth pondering that, in this time of tremendous upheaval and mandatory change, maybe we've been thinking about our identity, about the required ingredients for the American Dream, all wrong. And maybe owning a home, right along with buying an American car, is one of the great myths that's overdue for a revolution.
Batten down the hatches, bee-yatches. This ship be goin' down!
From SFGate: Why buy a house? Behold, one of the biggest myths of the American Dream.
Amid the assault of economic horror stories of late -- entire towns collapsing, 750-home megadevelopments sitting vacant, the most severe downturn in new-home construction in four billion years, Marc Jacobs forced to cancel both the gold-dipped male strippers and his entire Christmas party -- I happened across a fascinating tidbit of blasphemous wisdom from an economist whose name I forget and whose article vanished into my brainpan almost instantly, but who dared to reiterate a grand and forbidden truth.
It's this: Owning your own home is, for the most part, just a little bit insane.
Wait, no, that's not exactly right. His comment was more along the lines of: The hard fact is, at any given time, no more than about 50 percent of the American population should own their own homes, at the very most. Everyone else should rent. Or live in a van.
It just makes more sense. He argued that any more than 50 percent ownership -- the current rate is about 85 percent for married couples with kids and 70 percent for everyone overall -- is fiscally irrational, actually does more harm than good to the economy, and that millions of Americans who own right now would've been far better off never buying at all (and not merely because all the foreclosures and lending debacles).
Could it be true? That maybe a large part of our current housing woes are at least somewhat attributable to this borderline pathological need so many of us have to go into massive debt for the majority of our adult lives, just so you can have your own little box to destroy or rearrange or paint any color you want, so long as it's beige or gray or creamy eggshell white? Could be, could be.
Just before lightning struck him dead on the spot for daring to question one of the Great American Commandments, the economist concluded that that maybe this housing meltdown will, among other upheavals, teach millions of Americans a radical new truth: that buying a house is no more a prerequisite to achieving the American Dream than is, say, opening your own steakhouse or marrying a porn star or hoarding piles of stock in GM.
Actually, as a lifetime city dweller/renter myself, I've heard it for years; renting is often better than buying. That when you sit down and crunch the numbers and factor in all the taxes and dues and interest rates, maintenance fees and termites and cracked foundations and busted appliances and the cost of that new sewage line, well, owning is far more of a hassle and a burden and a lifetime o' stress than most people ever imagine.
And why don't we imagine it? Why is owning a home still considered such a prize, such a cornerstone of what it means to be a victorious American? Simple: because that's what we're taught.
It's tattooed into our psyches from birth that a successful society absolutely depends on community, nesting, home ownership to survive and flourish. It's one of the three Grand Directives of Socioeconomic Health, right after getting married and having kids (or, if you're feeling cynical, you add: Get divorce, sell house, resent kids, die alone in Florida. Gosh, you're bitter).
Follow these directives well, good citizen, and get your reward, straight from the government and the approving church down the street. Tax incentives, write-offs, free credit, equity buildup, blessings from God himself. Choose to rent for your whole life and move around a bit and never breed? You get nothing, sinner.
It's true. To defy any of these rules of "healthy" society is not only punishable by banishment from the Garden of Normalcy, but it's widely considered just a bit ... immoral. Live together without marriage? A sin. Birth control? Still a sin (such a cute one, too). Renting instead of buying? OK, not technically a sin, but to never feel a need to buy a home because you enjoy being fluid and experimental and transitory? Sure. Something is clearly wrong with you. Better go live on a commune in Marin, hippie.
I can't count how many friends I've known over the years who say they absolutely love living in the city, but as soon as they get married and/or have a child, something clicks and their eyes get that look, and suddenly they decide they must move to suburban Ohio because, you know, "that's where we can afford to buy a house." See? Pathological.
(Of course, there are many other very important factors at play: space for the kids, tolerable schools, lower taxes, safer neighborhoods, fewer bullet casings and used condoms in the sidewalk, and so on. I get it. But this only explains the need to get out of the City. It still doesn't explain the urge to buy.)
Here's the new wisdom: Social demographics are changing. Family dynamics are shifting. The new data reveals that we are an increasingly fluid, itinerant culture, no longer nearly as rooted to specific towns and neighborhoods as we were 50 years ago. The swell, rose-colored Norman Rockwell image of Americana, all porch swings and free parking and kids riding Big Wheels on the sidewalk next to neighbors who've lived on the street since the Eisenhower administration? Fading fast, if it ever really existed at all.
It's not easy to unpack. It's not easy to see the new perspective. For one thing, homes can be tremendously cool. I imagine designing your own to be the most gratifying form of self-expression, while providing a vital connection to place.
What's more, renting goes directly against our capitalist ethos. People like to own stuff, Americans especially so. Especially Americans who still have a sense of entitlement like no other species on the planet today except maybe Saudi sheiks and celebrity Chihuahuas and Mary J. Blige.
I've often felt the pull myself, have noticed that significant part of me that admires beautiful architecture and design, and often wants very much to invest in a beautiful space of my own and have the freedom to do with it what I want, some sort of gorgeous Dwell magazine fantasia that requires about three million and a revolving account at Roche Bobois. Someday, someday.
But it's certainly worth reconsidering. It's worth pondering that, in this time of tremendous upheaval and mandatory change, maybe we've been thinking about our identity, about the required ingredients for the American Dream, all wrong. And maybe owning a home, right along with buying an American car, is one of the great myths that's overdue for a revolution.
Batten down the hatches, bee-yatches. This ship be goin' down!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
In which the EE quotes Impressive Statistics™...
From Business Week: Every Stock Mutual Fund Has Lost Money in 2008, Except One.
Out of the 11,585 U.S. and international stock mutual funds tracked by Morningstar Inc., 11,584 have lost money in 2008, according to fund data through Nov. 20.
In other words, just one fund hasn’t lost money this year—and that is the APX Mid Cap Growth Fund, which was flat through Thursday’s close. That’s right, folks, its return—or lack thereof—is a mere zero thus far in 2008.
So long, buy-n-hold DCA-into-401(k) lemmings!
Out of the 11,585 U.S. and international stock mutual funds tracked by Morningstar Inc., 11,584 have lost money in 2008, according to fund data through Nov. 20.
In other words, just one fund hasn’t lost money this year—and that is the APX Mid Cap Growth Fund, which was flat through Thursday’s close. That’s right, folks, its return—or lack thereof—is a mere zero thus far in 2008.
So long, buy-n-hold DCA-into-401(k) lemmings!
In which the Brain Surgeons™ weigh in...
From the LA Times: Surge in unemployment puts California's Inland Empire in tailspin.
State numbers released Friday show the Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario area is now suffering from its highest unemployment rate in 13 years at 9.5% in October -- 3 percentage points higher than the national rate and 1.3 points higher than the state's rate of 8.2%.
Joblessness in the Inland Empire grew by 61,500 in the year from October 2007 to October 2008 -- a 54.1% increase amounting to a total of 175,100 people out of work, according to the California Employment Development Department.
A large chunk of those unemployed came from the construction industry, which shed 15,500 jobs, or 14.1% of its workforce, over the 12-month span. Manufacturing was responsible for 7,600 lost jobs, a 6.5% decline, and retail lost 5,800 jobs, a 3.3% drop.
"You see less people at the restaurants and carwashes," said Riverside Mayor Ronald Loveridge. "There is real pain almost everywhere you turn. My daughter is a counselor at Riverside Community College and she told me she met a [student] whose house was up for foreclosure. Her last resort would have been to move in with her parents, but their home is up for foreclosure.."
Wonder if the [student] was studying `economics'.
State numbers released Friday show the Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario area is now suffering from its highest unemployment rate in 13 years at 9.5% in October -- 3 percentage points higher than the national rate and 1.3 points higher than the state's rate of 8.2%.
Joblessness in the Inland Empire grew by 61,500 in the year from October 2007 to October 2008 -- a 54.1% increase amounting to a total of 175,100 people out of work, according to the California Employment Development Department.
A large chunk of those unemployed came from the construction industry, which shed 15,500 jobs, or 14.1% of its workforce, over the 12-month span. Manufacturing was responsible for 7,600 lost jobs, a 6.5% decline, and retail lost 5,800 jobs, a 3.3% drop.
"You see less people at the restaurants and carwashes," said Riverside Mayor Ronald Loveridge. "There is real pain almost everywhere you turn. My daughter is a counselor at Riverside Community College and she told me she met a [student] whose house was up for foreclosure. Her last resort would have been to move in with her parents, but their home is up for foreclosure.."
Wonder if the [student] was studying `economics'.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Each day, in every way...
Ever hear something new that kinda scares and shocks you economically?
No, the EE is not talking about the bailout.
During the absurd bubble, there actually existed humans who sold their services as baby-name consultants.
Jeebus! you can't make this stuff up.
No, the EE is not talking about the bailout.
During the absurd bubble, there actually existed humans who sold their services as baby-name consultants.
Jeebus! you can't make this stuff up.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Bitter Bailout's Bailout Bitter
From the Canadian Press: Howe Sound Brewery toasts tough times by launching 'Bailout Bitter' beer.
A private micro-brewery in British Columbia is toasting the current economic downturn by launching a special brand of recession-style beer.
Howe Sound Brewery says it is now making "Bailout Bitter," its most bitter-tasting brew named in honour of the government bailouts of the financial sector that have taken place globally, underscoring the severity of current economic crisis.
Calling it "bitter ale for bitter times," the brewery said the new beer will cost less than its other brands.
For instance, a pint of Bailout Bitter will sell for $5.50, or about $1 less per glass, at the company's restaurant and brew pub, located in Squamish, B.C., about an hour drive north of Vancouver.
A private micro-brewery in British Columbia is toasting the current economic downturn by launching a special brand of recession-style beer.
Howe Sound Brewery says it is now making "Bailout Bitter," its most bitter-tasting brew named in honour of the government bailouts of the financial sector that have taken place globally, underscoring the severity of current economic crisis.
Calling it "bitter ale for bitter times," the brewery said the new beer will cost less than its other brands.
For instance, a pint of Bailout Bitter will sell for $5.50, or about $1 less per glass, at the company's restaurant and brew pub, located in Squamish, B.C., about an hour drive north of Vancouver.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Change of status
Through absolutely no fault of management, and because of the Perfect Storm™, this blog has lost its ability to pay lucrative bonuses to its executives. The blog has received approval to become a bank holding company.
This will allow the blog access to the Fed discount window, the TARP, and all other future money printing operations.
This blog has not and will not ever invest in auto companies.
Ghana needs a Cash-'n-Carry
From Leveraged Sellout (who else?): Ghana unveils $14 economic stimulus plan.
Accra, Ghana—To help their countries weather the current financial storm, nations such as the United States and China have created large economic stimulus packages of $700B and $586B, respectively. And now the The Republic of Ghana will be joining their ranks with a newly approved plan of a staggering $14.
The package, which amounts to approximately 10% of Ghana’s GDP, will focus on increasing consumer spending but also target infrastructure through tax breaks, primarily on purchases of donkeys for transportation, as well as shovels, plows, and other equipment on the cutting edge of Ghanaian farming technology.
“This is a bold move,” said Kwame Armah-Attoh, a locally-based economist at Citigroup, referring to the sheer magnitude of the stimulus package vs. the present size of the economy. “Very aggressive,” he added, swatting away a swarm of flies from his face.
“We are set on keeping The Ghanaian Dream alive,” said President John Kufuor, likening his project to the New Deal. Kufuor was confident that the $14, less than a vodka-soda at The Gansevoort Hotel, would breathe life into his country’s economy and catapult it into G20: “From the dust,” he insisted grandly and without irony, “Ghana will emerge an economic powerhouse.”
Accra, Ghana—To help their countries weather the current financial storm, nations such as the United States and China have created large economic stimulus packages of $700B and $586B, respectively. And now the The Republic of Ghana will be joining their ranks with a newly approved plan of a staggering $14.
The package, which amounts to approximately 10% of Ghana’s GDP, will focus on increasing consumer spending but also target infrastructure through tax breaks, primarily on purchases of donkeys for transportation, as well as shovels, plows, and other equipment on the cutting edge of Ghanaian farming technology.
“This is a bold move,” said Kwame Armah-Attoh, a locally-based economist at Citigroup, referring to the sheer magnitude of the stimulus package vs. the present size of the economy. “Very aggressive,” he added, swatting away a swarm of flies from his face.
“We are set on keeping The Ghanaian Dream alive,” said President John Kufuor, likening his project to the New Deal. Kufuor was confident that the $14, less than a vodka-soda at The Gansevoort Hotel, would breathe life into his country’s economy and catapult it into G20: “From the dust,” he insisted grandly and without irony, “Ghana will emerge an economic powerhouse.”
USA #1
From Barrons: Uncle Sam's Credit Line Running Out?
The yield curve and credit-default swaps tell the same story: The U.S. can't borrow trillions without paying a price.
WHAT ONCE WAS UNTHINKABLE has come to pass this year: massive bailouts by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, with the extension of billions of the taxpayers' and the central bank's credit in so many new and untested schemes that you can't tell your acronyms or abbreviations without a scorecard.
Even more unbelievable is that some of the recipients of staggering sums are coming back for a second round. Or that the queue of petitioners grows by the day.
But what happens if the requests begin to strain the credit line of the world's most creditworthy borrower, the U.S. government itself? Unthinkable?
It may finally be catching up with Uncle Sam. That's what the yield curve may be whispering. But some economists are too deaf, or dumb, to get it.
The yield curve simply is the graph of Treasury yields of increasing maturities, starting from one-month bills to 30-year bonds. The slope of the line typically is ascending -- positive in math terms -- because investors would want more to tie up their money for longer periods, all else being equal. Which it never is.
If they expect yields to rise in the future, they'll want a bigger premium to commit to longer maturities. Otherwise, they'd rather stay short and wait for more generous yields later on. Conversely, if they think rates will fall, investors will want to lock in today's yields for a longer period.
The Treasury yield curve -- from two to 10 years, which is how the bond market tracks it -- has rarely been steeper. The spread is up to 250 basis points (2.5 percentage points, a level matched only in the past quarter century in 2002 and 1992, at the trough of economic cycles.
Based on a simplistic reading of that history and the Cliff Notes version of theory, one economist whose main area of expertise is to get quoted by reporters even less knowledgeable than he, asserts such a steep yield curve typically reflects investors' anticipation of economic recovery. Never mind that the yield curve has steepened as the economy has worsened and prospects for recovery have diminished. Like the Bourbons, the French royal family up to the Revolution, he learns nothing and forgets nothing.
The steepening of the Treasury yield curve has been accompanied by an increase in the cost of insuring against default by the U.S. Treasury. It may come as a shock, but there are credit-default swaps on the U.S. government and they have become more expensive -- in tandem with an increase in the spread between two- and 10-year notes.
Cutting through the technical jargon, the yield curve and the credit-default swaps market both indicate the markets are exacting a greater cost to lend to Uncle Sam. And it's not because of anticipated recovery, which would reduce, not increase, the cost of insuring Treasury debt against default.
Of course, the EE questions the sanity of the people buying the default swaps. When Uncle Sam defaults (which he will one way or the other), you actually expect your counterparty to pay up?
Good luck and good night!
The yield curve and credit-default swaps tell the same story: The U.S. can't borrow trillions without paying a price.
WHAT ONCE WAS UNTHINKABLE has come to pass this year: massive bailouts by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, with the extension of billions of the taxpayers' and the central bank's credit in so many new and untested schemes that you can't tell your acronyms or abbreviations without a scorecard.
Even more unbelievable is that some of the recipients of staggering sums are coming back for a second round. Or that the queue of petitioners grows by the day.
But what happens if the requests begin to strain the credit line of the world's most creditworthy borrower, the U.S. government itself? Unthinkable?
It may finally be catching up with Uncle Sam. That's what the yield curve may be whispering. But some economists are too deaf, or dumb, to get it.
The yield curve simply is the graph of Treasury yields of increasing maturities, starting from one-month bills to 30-year bonds. The slope of the line typically is ascending -- positive in math terms -- because investors would want more to tie up their money for longer periods, all else being equal. Which it never is.
If they expect yields to rise in the future, they'll want a bigger premium to commit to longer maturities. Otherwise, they'd rather stay short and wait for more generous yields later on. Conversely, if they think rates will fall, investors will want to lock in today's yields for a longer period.
The Treasury yield curve -- from two to 10 years, which is how the bond market tracks it -- has rarely been steeper. The spread is up to 250 basis points (2.5 percentage points, a level matched only in the past quarter century in 2002 and 1992, at the trough of economic cycles.
Based on a simplistic reading of that history and the Cliff Notes version of theory, one economist whose main area of expertise is to get quoted by reporters even less knowledgeable than he, asserts such a steep yield curve typically reflects investors' anticipation of economic recovery. Never mind that the yield curve has steepened as the economy has worsened and prospects for recovery have diminished. Like the Bourbons, the French royal family up to the Revolution, he learns nothing and forgets nothing.
The steepening of the Treasury yield curve has been accompanied by an increase in the cost of insuring against default by the U.S. Treasury. It may come as a shock, but there are credit-default swaps on the U.S. government and they have become more expensive -- in tandem with an increase in the spread between two- and 10-year notes.
Cutting through the technical jargon, the yield curve and the credit-default swaps market both indicate the markets are exacting a greater cost to lend to Uncle Sam. And it's not because of anticipated recovery, which would reduce, not increase, the cost of insuring Treasury debt against default.
Of course, the EE questions the sanity of the people buying the default swaps. When Uncle Sam defaults (which he will one way or the other), you actually expect your counterparty to pay up?
Good luck and good night!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"The rich are different from you and me..."
They go bankrupt faster. Then they call their buddies for a bailout paid by the taxpayers.
From the AP: Exclusive Yellowstone Club files for bankruptcy.
The Yellowstone Club, an exclusive mountain retreat for the ultra-rich, said it filed for bankruptcy Monday after failing to secure new financing — underscoring that even the elite can't escape the country's current economic troubles.
Spokesman Bill Keegan said the club filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court in Montana. The move came just two months after the club announced an ambitious expansion plan through a partnership with the Arizona-based Discovery Land Company.
The gated, millionaires-only club on 13,400 acres in Montana's Gallatin Mountains boasts a private ski hill and golf course. Opened in 1999, it counts former Vice President Dan Quayle and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates among its 340 members.
From the AP: Exclusive Yellowstone Club files for bankruptcy.
The Yellowstone Club, an exclusive mountain retreat for the ultra-rich, said it filed for bankruptcy Monday after failing to secure new financing — underscoring that even the elite can't escape the country's current economic troubles.
Spokesman Bill Keegan said the club filed for Chapter 11 protection in federal bankruptcy court in Montana. The move came just two months after the club announced an ambitious expansion plan through a partnership with the Arizona-based Discovery Land Company.
The gated, millionaires-only club on 13,400 acres in Montana's Gallatin Mountains boasts a private ski hill and golf course. Opened in 1999, it counts former Vice President Dan Quayle and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates among its 340 members.
Fore!!! ........... closed
Nothing like a good golf metaphor to tee off the evening with. Beats swinging clichés around like so many reporters but then they don't exactly have little birdies to tip them off about these things.
From the San Diego Union Tribune: Fallbrook club's closing is one sad story.
In the San Diego golf community, the country club equivalent right now is the Golf Club of California.
Opened six years ago, the Golf Club would seemingly have everything a well-to-do, golf-loving member could want. Among the spacious housing development that is Sycamore Ranch, north of Highway 76, it sits on a bucolic piece of land dotted with old-growth oaks and sycamores. The 17,000-square-foot, mission-style clubhouse rivals most in the area for understated and comfortable elegance. The members take enormous pride in their demanding, imaginative layout, which includes a par-3 hole with a bunker in the middle of the green.
This is what they call the albatross.
Ten days ago, the Golf Club of California closed. In an e-mail sent at 3:20 a.m. on Oct. 30, General Manager Kay McLaughlin, representing her family's Korean ownership group, informed members that Halloween would be the last day the club would be available for play. Member dues were suspended as of Nov. 1. Lockers were to be cleared out immediately.
Looks like the bogey man got there for Halloween.
“Coming to work each day, it breaks my heart for us to be closed,” McLaughlin said. “I am the saddest one here.”
Now, that's just par for the course!
From the San Diego Union Tribune: Fallbrook club's closing is one sad story.
In the San Diego golf community, the country club equivalent right now is the Golf Club of California.
Opened six years ago, the Golf Club would seemingly have everything a well-to-do, golf-loving member could want. Among the spacious housing development that is Sycamore Ranch, north of Highway 76, it sits on a bucolic piece of land dotted with old-growth oaks and sycamores. The 17,000-square-foot, mission-style clubhouse rivals most in the area for understated and comfortable elegance. The members take enormous pride in their demanding, imaginative layout, which includes a par-3 hole with a bunker in the middle of the green.
This is what they call the albatross.
Ten days ago, the Golf Club of California closed. In an e-mail sent at 3:20 a.m. on Oct. 30, General Manager Kay McLaughlin, representing her family's Korean ownership group, informed members that Halloween would be the last day the club would be available for play. Member dues were suspended as of Nov. 1. Lockers were to be cleared out immediately.
Looks like the bogey man got there for Halloween.
“Coming to work each day, it breaks my heart for us to be closed,” McLaughlin said. “I am the saddest one here.”
Now, that's just par for the course!
In which the EE explains some fundamental misconceptions...
From the Naples News: Fort Myers home resales up in October, prices keep falling.
Home resales in the Fort Myers area rose for the 10th month in a row in October.
Meanwhile, values continued to fall in a market that’s plagued by foreclosures.
The median price fell to $119,000 last month _ 22.6 percent lower than it was in 2003. The median price is the price at which half the homes sell for more and half for less.
Denny Grimes, president of Denny Grimes & Co., a real estate based in Fort Myers, said continue to fall too because there are still so many homes on the market. He doesn’t see an end to the trend any time soon.
“Are we close to the bottom now? We are not close to the bottom with the level of inventory we see,” Grimes said.
But it’s got to stop somewhere.
“It can’t go down to free,” Grimes said.
Actually, Denny, it can. There is no "law of nature" that things can't be free. It all comes back to demand and supply, those old bugaboos.
If nobody wants something, its price may not only be free but negative (as in you have to pay to get rid of it.) There is absolutely nothing stopping this.
The point is that in this boom, homes were built in absurd places that nobody wanted to live in. With population growth, they will get filled in, say ten years, but what happens between now and then?
The idea that housing is immune to the rock-solid laws of demand and supply is absurd. There are literally thousands upon thousands of houses in Detroit and Cleveland being offered for $1. Yep, $1. More than you pay for your daily coffee. More than it costs me for my subway ride. And there are absolutely no takers.
So not only can they go to zero, given the situation, they will be going to zero.
Home resales in the Fort Myers area rose for the 10th month in a row in October.
Meanwhile, values continued to fall in a market that’s plagued by foreclosures.
The median price fell to $119,000 last month _ 22.6 percent lower than it was in 2003. The median price is the price at which half the homes sell for more and half for less.
Denny Grimes, president of Denny Grimes & Co., a real estate based in Fort Myers, said continue to fall too because there are still so many homes on the market. He doesn’t see an end to the trend any time soon.
“Are we close to the bottom now? We are not close to the bottom with the level of inventory we see,” Grimes said.
But it’s got to stop somewhere.
“It can’t go down to free,” Grimes said.
Actually, Denny, it can. There is no "law of nature" that things can't be free. It all comes back to demand and supply, those old bugaboos.
If nobody wants something, its price may not only be free but negative (as in you have to pay to get rid of it.) There is absolutely nothing stopping this.
The point is that in this boom, homes were built in absurd places that nobody wanted to live in. With population growth, they will get filled in, say ten years, but what happens between now and then?
The idea that housing is immune to the rock-solid laws of demand and supply is absurd. There are literally thousands upon thousands of houses in Detroit and Cleveland being offered for $1. Yep, $1. More than you pay for your daily coffee. More than it costs me for my subway ride. And there are absolutely no takers.
So not only can they go to zero, given the situation, they will be going to zero.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Burnt Coffee
From Yahoo!: Starbucks 4Q profit drops 97 pct on closure costs.
Fewer U.S. customers and venti-sized costs for closing poorly performing stores led to lower sales and profit in the fourth quarter at Starbucks Corp., the company said Monday.
Seattle-based Starbucks said profit fell 97 percent to $5.4 million, or a penny a share, from $158.5 million, or 21 cents per share, a year earlier. The coffee retailer earned 10 cents per share when the costs from closing about 600 stores in the U.S. and 61 locations in Australia are excluded.
Maybe they should approach the US Treasury for a bailout?!?
Fewer U.S. customers and venti-sized costs for closing poorly performing stores led to lower sales and profit in the fourth quarter at Starbucks Corp., the company said Monday.
Seattle-based Starbucks said profit fell 97 percent to $5.4 million, or a penny a share, from $158.5 million, or 21 cents per share, a year earlier. The coffee retailer earned 10 cents per share when the costs from closing about 600 stores in the U.S. and 61 locations in Australia are excluded.
Maybe they should approach the US Treasury for a bailout?!?
MSM + Sheep = Shearing
On Aug 9th, the EE gave some uncontroversial advice.
Now, the LA Times chimes in with: Gift card holders may be out of luck in retail bankruptcies.
On Wall Street, lawmakers are talking about how "toxic debt" threatens banks and lending. Out on Main Street, shoppers better start thinking about "toxic" gift cards from companies that could go bankrupt. They won't be worth the plastic they are printed on.
There's a new realization that holding a gift card from a troubled retailer is like having a bank account without FDIC insurance.
Fo' shizzle, y'all, they always be behind the curve; that's why they be sheep.
Now, the LA Times chimes in with: Gift card holders may be out of luck in retail bankruptcies.
On Wall Street, lawmakers are talking about how "toxic debt" threatens banks and lending. Out on Main Street, shoppers better start thinking about "toxic" gift cards from companies that could go bankrupt. They won't be worth the plastic they are printed on.
There's a new realization that holding a gift card from a troubled retailer is like having a bank account without FDIC insurance.
Fo' shizzle, y'all, they always be behind the curve; that's why they be sheep.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Backpedaling
From some podunk paper: Economists say Obama's plans might help economy, but not overnight.
President-elect Barack Obama has been upfront in saying that the economic troubles won't be resolved within the next year. So he may avoid quick fixes and offer calm.
Fuckin' kill me before I die laughing over the fools. He's gonna offer "calm"?!?!?
Yeah, "calm" will sure pay the bills, won't it now?
O Sweet Baby Jeebus, verily, you play irony with the fools while you teach the wolves to shear the sheep raw.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
It only took three days to backpedal?!? Lawd, this is funny.
It all comes back to Mencken, my friends!
Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses.
President-elect Barack Obama has been upfront in saying that the economic troubles won't be resolved within the next year. So he may avoid quick fixes and offer calm.
Fuckin' kill me before I die laughing over the fools. He's gonna offer "calm"?!?!?
Yeah, "calm" will sure pay the bills, won't it now?
O Sweet Baby Jeebus, verily, you play irony with the fools while you teach the wolves to shear the sheep raw.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
It only took three days to backpedal?!? Lawd, this is funny.
It all comes back to Mencken, my friends!
Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses.
Sharpest Analysis on Oil
From Bloomberg, Caroline Baum writes: World Is `Drowning in Oil' (Again) After Drought.
She is the smartest economic reporter the EE knows, and the only one he takes seriously (even if we differ which is rare.)
Three months ago, the world was running out of oil.
Seriously. I kid you not. Everywhere you turned, you heard whispers that the day of petroleum reckoning was at hand.
Now there's too much oil, prodding OPEC to cut production targets for the first time in two years. Last week, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, confronted with the halving of oil prices since July, announced a 1.5 million barrel-a-day cut in output.
All speculative bubbles have a kernel of truth behind them to justify their existence. This time around it was China and India. These emerging Asian giants were gobbling up all the commodities the world could produce to fuel their rapid industrialization.
It wasn't that the story was untrue; it was old. Growing global demand probably was the reason for the gradual rise in oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40 earlier in the decade, and even to $60 by mid-2005.
It was the moon shot to $147 that took on a life, and a litany, of its own. Emerging nations didn't start gobbling up crude, coal and copper all of a sudden in the middle of 2007.
Yet analysts on TV and in print told us with a straight face that the doubling in oil prices from July 2007 to July 2008 was a result of fundamental demand, not speculative buying or investors, including pension funds, ``diversifying'' into ``alternative investments'' in search of ``uncorrelated returns.'' (It sounds a lot better than admitting you got suckered into buying what was going up and are now stuck with a pile of stuff that no one wants.)
``It happens in every market,'' says Michael Aronstein, president of Marketfield Asset Management in New York. ``Once it goes up an enormous amount, creating unfathomable wealth for the fortunate participants, someone makes an ex-post case as to why we are only at a beginning and it's not too late to get in.''
This advice is ``generally formulated by someone who has a vested interest in selling the stuff,'' he says.
Like the world of fashion, trends in markets come and go. Oil is a limited, albeit vast, resource. At some point in the future, we probably will run out of petroleum, at least as we know it.
Man's ingenuity is equally vast. When the time comes, given all the tax incentives that will be thrown in the direction of alternative energy, I have full confidence the world will not return to travel by horse and buggy.
The silliness that accompanies speculative bubbles isn't to be outdone by what passes for economic analysis. It's just over three months since commodities began their sharp, swift descent, and already the nonsense is starting: Lower oil prices are going to boost consumer demand.
Whoa! The price of oil (and other raw materials) is falling because of a cutback in demand, both actual and expected. Expressed as a graph, the demand curve for oil has shifted back, to the left. Consumers demand less energy (gasoline, heating oil) at any given price than they did before.
To say that lower prices will stimulate demand, a widely held misconception, confuses a movement along the demand curve (lower price, higher quantity) with a shift back in the curve (lower price, lower quantity).
Why this is such a hard concept to understand, I'm not sure. People imbue oil prices with all kinds of mystical powers. They see a falling price and treat it as a cause, not an effect.
Brilliant, simply brilliant!
She is the smartest economic reporter the EE knows, and the only one he takes seriously (even if we differ which is rare.)
Three months ago, the world was running out of oil.
Seriously. I kid you not. Everywhere you turned, you heard whispers that the day of petroleum reckoning was at hand.
Now there's too much oil, prodding OPEC to cut production targets for the first time in two years. Last week, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, confronted with the halving of oil prices since July, announced a 1.5 million barrel-a-day cut in output.
All speculative bubbles have a kernel of truth behind them to justify their existence. This time around it was China and India. These emerging Asian giants were gobbling up all the commodities the world could produce to fuel their rapid industrialization.
It wasn't that the story was untrue; it was old. Growing global demand probably was the reason for the gradual rise in oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40 earlier in the decade, and even to $60 by mid-2005.
It was the moon shot to $147 that took on a life, and a litany, of its own. Emerging nations didn't start gobbling up crude, coal and copper all of a sudden in the middle of 2007.
Yet analysts on TV and in print told us with a straight face that the doubling in oil prices from July 2007 to July 2008 was a result of fundamental demand, not speculative buying or investors, including pension funds, ``diversifying'' into ``alternative investments'' in search of ``uncorrelated returns.'' (It sounds a lot better than admitting you got suckered into buying what was going up and are now stuck with a pile of stuff that no one wants.)
``It happens in every market,'' says Michael Aronstein, president of Marketfield Asset Management in New York. ``Once it goes up an enormous amount, creating unfathomable wealth for the fortunate participants, someone makes an ex-post case as to why we are only at a beginning and it's not too late to get in.''
This advice is ``generally formulated by someone who has a vested interest in selling the stuff,'' he says.
Like the world of fashion, trends in markets come and go. Oil is a limited, albeit vast, resource. At some point in the future, we probably will run out of petroleum, at least as we know it.
Man's ingenuity is equally vast. When the time comes, given all the tax incentives that will be thrown in the direction of alternative energy, I have full confidence the world will not return to travel by horse and buggy.
The silliness that accompanies speculative bubbles isn't to be outdone by what passes for economic analysis. It's just over three months since commodities began their sharp, swift descent, and already the nonsense is starting: Lower oil prices are going to boost consumer demand.
Whoa! The price of oil (and other raw materials) is falling because of a cutback in demand, both actual and expected. Expressed as a graph, the demand curve for oil has shifted back, to the left. Consumers demand less energy (gasoline, heating oil) at any given price than they did before.
To say that lower prices will stimulate demand, a widely held misconception, confuses a movement along the demand curve (lower price, higher quantity) with a shift back in the curve (lower price, lower quantity).
Why this is such a hard concept to understand, I'm not sure. People imbue oil prices with all kinds of mystical powers. They see a falling price and treat it as a cause, not an effect.
Brilliant, simply brilliant!
Government Fried Rice (for everyone)
From Yahoo!: China announces $586 billion stimulus plan.
China announced a $586 billion stimulus package Sunday in its biggest move to stop the global financial crisis from hitting the world's fourth-largest economy.
Everyone's busy stimulating everyone else. (Stimulate me, baby!)
But nothing's working.
Could it possibly be, horror of all horrors, the fundamentals?
China announced a $586 billion stimulus package Sunday in its biggest move to stop the global financial crisis from hitting the world's fourth-largest economy.
Everyone's busy stimulating everyone else. (Stimulate me, baby!)
But nothing's working.
Could it possibly be, horror of all horrors, the fundamentals?
The Old Lady Bends Over
From all the News That's Biased to Print™, the venereal New York Times: A Downturn Begins.
EVEN though the average price for a Manhattan apartment, at $1.5 million, is higher than it was a year ago, some New York neighborhoods have already started to feel the downward tug that has wrenched the housing market elsewhere in the nation.
Please note the "positive" spin first.
Then comes the reality:
Median prices in Harlem and East Harlem were down nearly 20 percent.
Midtown East and Turtle Bay dropped 18.6 percent. Midtown West and Hell’s Kitchen dropped 8 percent.
Other neighborhoods that experienced price drops include the Lower East Side and the East Village, where median prices fell 5.5 percent; and Carnegie Hill, where co-op prices decreased 7.2 percent. Median prices in Hamilton Heights and Morningside Heights dropped 30.
Another sign that the market has slowed significantly is the marked drop in sales, decreasing 24 percent in Manhattan.
One of the best indicators of "shorting" something is when you see price increases on slowing volume. That means there are fewer and fewer transactions taking place at higher and higher prices indicating a steep decline ahead.
Watch out below, Big Apple.
EVEN though the average price for a Manhattan apartment, at $1.5 million, is higher than it was a year ago, some New York neighborhoods have already started to feel the downward tug that has wrenched the housing market elsewhere in the nation.
Please note the "positive" spin first.
Then comes the reality:
Median prices in Harlem and East Harlem were down nearly 20 percent.
Midtown East and Turtle Bay dropped 18.6 percent. Midtown West and Hell’s Kitchen dropped 8 percent.
Other neighborhoods that experienced price drops include the Lower East Side and the East Village, where median prices fell 5.5 percent; and Carnegie Hill, where co-op prices decreased 7.2 percent. Median prices in Hamilton Heights and Morningside Heights dropped 30.
Another sign that the market has slowed significantly is the marked drop in sales, decreasing 24 percent in Manhattan.
One of the best indicators of "shorting" something is when you see price increases on slowing volume. That means there are fewer and fewer transactions taking place at higher and higher prices indicating a steep decline ahead.
Watch out below, Big Apple.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
F-art Lending
From New York magazine: Own a Francis Bacon? We’ll Pay You $$!
One art-world business is booming: collectors looking to borrow against works they own, especially before the fall sales threaten to lower values. “We’ve been contacted by lots of people who are feeling some sort of margin call,” says Sotheby’s CEO, Bill Ruprecht. Other lenders have virtually stopped lending against art recently, but Ruprecht says Sotheby’s is still “very comfortable” doing so. (At 2007’s end, the auction house had $176.4 million loaned out; by the middle of this year, it was $212 million.) Tobias Meyer, who runs the contemporary-art department, says he’s also seeing more “consignment advances”—sellers agreeing to put their art on the block and getting some money up front. But he’s also finding owners disappointed by their holdings’ worth. “Just because we sold a great, rare $80 million Francis Bacon, everyone with a Bacon thinks theirs is worth $40 million,” he says. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Further evidence that the credit flowed into just about every asset class (not that the people reading this needed convincing.)
And the recent art auctions were "disappointing" with 44% not meeting their "reserve price".
To Sotheby's, good luck getting any of that "very comfortable" money back before two decades.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
One art-world business is booming: collectors looking to borrow against works they own, especially before the fall sales threaten to lower values. “We’ve been contacted by lots of people who are feeling some sort of margin call,” says Sotheby’s CEO, Bill Ruprecht. Other lenders have virtually stopped lending against art recently, but Ruprecht says Sotheby’s is still “very comfortable” doing so. (At 2007’s end, the auction house had $176.4 million loaned out; by the middle of this year, it was $212 million.) Tobias Meyer, who runs the contemporary-art department, says he’s also seeing more “consignment advances”—sellers agreeing to put their art on the block and getting some money up front. But he’s also finding owners disappointed by their holdings’ worth. “Just because we sold a great, rare $80 million Francis Bacon, everyone with a Bacon thinks theirs is worth $40 million,” he says. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Further evidence that the credit flowed into just about every asset class (not that the people reading this needed convincing.)
And the recent art auctions were "disappointing" with 44% not meeting their "reserve price".
To Sotheby's, good luck getting any of that "very comfortable" money back before two decades.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Smart, huh?
From Bloomberg: GMAC Leaves Individuals Holding Car Lender's Junk.
GMAC LLC may leave thousands of individuals on the hook for about $15 billion of junk-rated debt unless the auto and home lender finds a way to pay its bills.
GMAC, the largest lender to car dealers of General Motors Corp., issued more than $25 billion of debt called SmartNotes over the past decade to retail investors. While GMAC has paid off the debts as they matured, five straight unprofitable quarters raised doubt about GMAC's survival, and SmartNotes due in July 2020 have lost about three-quarters of their value.
``An investment like this is totally unsuitable for the retail investor,'' said Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, who rates GMAC bonds junk, or below investment grade. ``You're selling it to the widows and orphans who think of GMAC as being this strong, long- standing corporation when the reality is far from that.''
Shear those sheep, baby!
GMAC LLC may leave thousands of individuals on the hook for about $15 billion of junk-rated debt unless the auto and home lender finds a way to pay its bills.
GMAC, the largest lender to car dealers of General Motors Corp., issued more than $25 billion of debt called SmartNotes over the past decade to retail investors. While GMAC has paid off the debts as they matured, five straight unprofitable quarters raised doubt about GMAC's survival, and SmartNotes due in July 2020 have lost about three-quarters of their value.
``An investment like this is totally unsuitable for the retail investor,'' said Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, who rates GMAC bonds junk, or below investment grade. ``You're selling it to the widows and orphans who think of GMAC as being this strong, long- standing corporation when the reality is far from that.''
Shear those sheep, baby!
Calling it like...
From Reuters: Steep food price increases on way: experts.
U.S. food prices will rise by at least 7 percent in 2009 because of higher feed costs for chickens, hogs and cattle, said a group of food-industry economists on Thursday.
Let's see.
Food-industry economists = National Association of Realtors™. The same people who couldn't see the commodities bubble are now going to give us advice on the future? Who hasn't seen this one before? Raise your hand.
"We've been losing money for more than a year," said Bill Roenigk, economist for the Chicken Council, who said producers intend to cut production by as much as 12 percent. "We need to recover these feed costs."
Yes, and the EE needs a diamond tiara. Doesn't mean it's going to happen now, does it?
The "cost-of-production" theory of value was soundly debunked even before the 20th century rolled around. We're now in the 21st in case you didn't notice.
Nobody cares what it cost you to produce. Only thing that matters is whether people will buy it or not, and what price will they pay.
During a teleconference, economists from the National Chicken Council and the consultancy Farm Econ said food inflation could be 7 percent-8 percent.
This is naïve extrapolation a.k.a. driving by looking in the rearview mirror.
In case you haven't noticed, the "hyperconsumer" economy turbo-charged on credit just got taken out behind the woodshed, and was shot like a diseased dog.
Simple straightforward prediction:
demand destruction = lower prices = price deflation.
U.S. food prices will rise by at least 7 percent in 2009 because of higher feed costs for chickens, hogs and cattle, said a group of food-industry economists on Thursday.
Let's see.
Food-industry economists = National Association of Realtors™. The same people who couldn't see the commodities bubble are now going to give us advice on the future? Who hasn't seen this one before? Raise your hand.
"We've been losing money for more than a year," said Bill Roenigk, economist for the Chicken Council, who said producers intend to cut production by as much as 12 percent. "We need to recover these feed costs."
Yes, and the EE needs a diamond tiara. Doesn't mean it's going to happen now, does it?
The "cost-of-production" theory of value was soundly debunked even before the 20th century rolled around. We're now in the 21st in case you didn't notice.
Nobody cares what it cost you to produce. Only thing that matters is whether people will buy it or not, and what price will they pay.
During a teleconference, economists from the National Chicken Council and the consultancy Farm Econ said food inflation could be 7 percent-8 percent.
This is naïve extrapolation a.k.a. driving by looking in the rearview mirror.
In case you haven't noticed, the "hyperconsumer" economy turbo-charged on credit just got taken out behind the woodshed, and was shot like a diseased dog.
Simple straightforward prediction:
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Jump, you Fuckers!
From the WSJ: His Job at Bear Gone, Mr. Fox Chose Suicide.
The meltdown of Bear Stearns Cos. in March marked the collapse of the modern securities industry, and the careers of some on Wall Street.
The financial crisis also claimed the life of a veteran Bear Stearns manager.
Barry Fox, a research supervisor who worked for nine years at the brokerage firm, took a drug overdose and then jumped from his 29th-floor apartment the evening in May after he learned he wouldn't be hired by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which was about to buy his firm. A coroner recently confirmed in an autopsy report that the death was a suicide.
Mr. Fox was devastated by the implosion of Bear Stearns and the financial hit he was likely to face, says Fred Philippi, his longtime companion. After several personal setbacks, "this Bear Stearns thing happened to be the last straw that broke his spirit," Mr. Philippi said in an interview.
...
The meltdown has also taken a more hidden toll, helping to push Mr. Fox and a handful of Wall Streeters over the edge. For instance, in early October, an unemployed financial manager in Los Angeles murdered his family before taking his own life, saying in a note to police that economic hardship drove him to despair. And about two weeks later, a Chicago futures trader fatally shot himself after reportedly sustaining big losses in his personal portfolio.
And that's why, boys and girls, you should learn to recognize the "obvious" signs of a bubble, and not get involved even if you are employed in the industry that's in the bubble and are raking in the dough yourself.
That they'd rather be dead than "less rich", and have no doubt that these people weren't exactly destined for the dole queue is mind-bending. What it says about America's collective self-delusion about money and status is even more disturbing.
The saddest part is that you can haul yourself down to your library (or internet these days), pull up a newspaper after the Panic of 1837 or the Great Panic of 1907, and you'd get a functionally equivalent story. You could change the names but you probably even wouldn't need to change the streets in New York and Chicago!
No wonder some of us consider filing Edith Wharton under "realism" in literature.
It was a freakin' bubble, the largest freakin' Asset Bubble in World History™ incorporating EVERY possible asset class that the EE can think of (and probably even some more), and it's not coming back.
EVER. (or at least not till two generations pass by.)
You may find it hard to recognize this because we've been sitting embedded inside this Mega-Bubble™ since 1983 but it has firmly ended. The entire world's FIRE economy worked by rolling debt into larger sums of debt at lower cost all the way down from 18% to 1%. The party is over.
Either you pay back the debt, or you default directly, or you default via govt. interference by fiat-inflation. All three roads lead to the abolishment of the debt. There are no other roads possible.
Until everybody firmly grasps this, we're pretty much screwed. Or to put it more poetically:
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Spitting Image : Bring back the 80's!
One of my all-time favorite shows in the late 80's and early 90's.
Well, Maggie's long gone but classics are timeless!
Well, Maggie's long gone but classics are timeless!
Ford to Ford : Drop Dead
From Reuters: Ford Oct U.S. vehicle sales off adj. 31.9 pct.
You can read the article if you want. There's a table and stuff but the headline pretty much sums it up.
Maybe they can get a bailout. Or hold a prayer vigil.
Wait! They tried both.
Speaking of bailouts, the EE has lost track of the bailout situation. Anybody care to provide an update?
Who's doing what to whom how many times now?
You can read the article if you want. There's a table and stuff but the headline pretty much sums it up.
Maybe they can get a bailout. Or hold a prayer vigil.
Wait! They tried both.
Speaking of bailouts, the EE has lost track of the bailout situation. Anybody care to provide an update?
Who's doing what to whom how many times now?
Monday, November 03, 2008
Good for Nothing
From Bloomberg: Lehman Good-for-Retirement Notes Worth Pennies for UBS Clients.
UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank, faces dozens of claims in the U.S. from clients who bought ``100 percent principal protected notes'' issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that are now almost worthless.
Lehman's Sept. 15 bankruptcy leaves holders of the notes waiting in line with other senior unsecured creditors for what's left of their money. Notes with full principal protection are trading at 10 cents to 14 cents on the dollar, according to New York-based SecondMarket, which provides a marketplace for securities that are illiquid, or barely trade.
UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank, faces dozens of claims in the U.S. from clients who bought ``100 percent principal protected notes'' issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that are now almost worthless.
Lehman's Sept. 15 bankruptcy leaves holders of the notes waiting in line with other senior unsecured creditors for what's left of their money. Notes with full principal protection are trading at 10 cents to 14 cents on the dollar, according to New York-based SecondMarket, which provides a marketplace for securities that are illiquid, or barely trade.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Never Count your Chickens...
From the venereal New York Times which has bankruptcy issues itself: A Chef Sells Customers on Providing Him Capital.
DESPERATE times call for desperate measures.
That’s why John Halko is offering customers of his hole-in-the-wall organic restaurant here a chance to invest — kind of — in his business through what he calls V.I.P. cards. The cards, ranging in value from $500 to $10,000, guarantee buyers discounted meals for years to come. He has sold two dozen cards, one for $10,000, earning about $16,000.
But Mr. Halko, 40, who spent much of his career as a chef with companies that cater to film crews on location, said he had found it maddening to expand. He wants to open a 50-seat restaurant and lounge in leased space across the street that would also offer liquor and wine and periodically feature entertainers. He has spent $100,000 on renovations for the new space, money he got with a home equity loan on his house. He is trying to obtain an additional $150,000, and so far two banks, Hudson Valley and Commerce, have turned him down, he said.
And he is also offering the V.I.P. gift cards, which will allow customers to eat at both locations free until they consume the face value of the card plus 20 percent. The arrangement, he said, feels better than asking those customers for a flat-out loan.
Meanwhile, he has had to grapple with another economic predicament: business at Comfort is down — perhaps 10 percent.
“It’s been crunch time for the past 8 to 10 months,” he said. “People are not spending money like they used to.”
$10K is ludicrous. Even if you went there once a week, and spent $200 on each trip, you'd take more than a year to get a return on your money. Assuming the place survives which given the owner's fiscal decision to "expand" during a recession makes the entire proposition absurd.
File this under moronic!
DESPERATE times call for desperate measures.
That’s why John Halko is offering customers of his hole-in-the-wall organic restaurant here a chance to invest — kind of — in his business through what he calls V.I.P. cards. The cards, ranging in value from $500 to $10,000, guarantee buyers discounted meals for years to come. He has sold two dozen cards, one for $10,000, earning about $16,000.
But Mr. Halko, 40, who spent much of his career as a chef with companies that cater to film crews on location, said he had found it maddening to expand. He wants to open a 50-seat restaurant and lounge in leased space across the street that would also offer liquor and wine and periodically feature entertainers. He has spent $100,000 on renovations for the new space, money he got with a home equity loan on his house. He is trying to obtain an additional $150,000, and so far two banks, Hudson Valley and Commerce, have turned him down, he said.
And he is also offering the V.I.P. gift cards, which will allow customers to eat at both locations free until they consume the face value of the card plus 20 percent. The arrangement, he said, feels better than asking those customers for a flat-out loan.
Meanwhile, he has had to grapple with another economic predicament: business at Comfort is down — perhaps 10 percent.
“It’s been crunch time for the past 8 to 10 months,” he said. “People are not spending money like they used to.”
$10K is ludicrous. Even if you went there once a week, and spent $200 on each trip, you'd take more than a year to get a return on your money. Assuming the place survives which given the owner's fiscal decision to "expand" during a recession makes the entire proposition absurd.
File this under moronic!
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)